You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do. Democracy ie representing the majority and informing them sufficiently so that they can make sound decisions was all about putting an end to the rule of the minority who kept power and maintained power via terror, the terror of public executions. Whether they call themselves kings or emperors or gods, we just call them all terrorists today and their descendants are just narcissistic ass hats or worse psychopaths who should be behind bars.

I'd fully support removing any barriers to that. They'll surely get charged out the nose, but it's a reasonable proposal. What's not reasonable is having regular drivers subsidize Uber drivers by letting Uber drivers do commercial work on non-commercial insurance.

So yes, the majority of people support the mandatory labelling of 'ALL' food. What exactly is in it. So what is so new about that. So some smart arse sucks in people who don't know what they are talking about thinks they win. So why didn't that same shit for brains ask people simple questions in a foreign language and laugh at their ignorance. Seriously give a few people a little more brains than average and they think they are geniuses.

It is pretty damn obvious that people want to know what is being put in their foods and screw all those that want to lie and deceive so they can stick shit in it because it is cheap and then add artificial flavours to hide the taste of that shit.

So you oppose representative government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., hmm, interesting, have you been investigated lately because I am sure that there are a few people that would like to talk to you after that kind of statement. So you oppose the idea of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, interesting.

So democracy is mob rule, hmm, OK.

I am sure all the kings and queens of this world agree with you. All the leaders of police states. All those self serving autocrats.

Reality is of course, that it is not like any thing of this planet is ever going to be permanent. Some localised environments well end up doing not much more than providing knowledge that can be used in other areas and many will disappear without any human ever being aware of them, let alone try to understand them and the knowledge they can provide about the rest of the environment we live in. All things in balance, the quest for knowledge and what it provides and the quest to preserve. Of course there is no balance in ignorance so that is no goal at all.

Haha, yeah, I remember back when all that was on fark.com was a picture of that squirrel with the oversized genitals. Heck, I knew him before Fark.com, when he was the wizard Cletus on the mud Three Kingdoms.

God I feel old...

That falls into statistically normal usage. Being a commercial driver absolutely does not. Statistically, a commercial driver drives way more than a noncommercial driver, and they're much more likely to be sued, and for more money. It's absurd to argue that they should be able to drive on insurance rates calculated for statistical norms of noncommercial drivers. If you allow that sort of ignoring of statistics then you might as well get rid of all statistical tables period and charge every last person the same rate for all types of insurance.

Why, exactly, should Uber drivers get to drive passengers using regular non-commercial drivers' insurance? Commercial insurance costs more because people who drive people around for a living are much more likely to cost the insurance companies more money. If you're letting them drive on non-commercial licenses than that means that regular drivers are subsidizing Uber-drivers.

When it comes to a 3 or more button mouse, I find I like to keep my thumb busy and that seems to work pretty well. Want to test control ergonomics ask gamers.

Everyone has to keep in mind that the big screen high definition display is still far, far cheaper than a picture window with a good view and it can do far more with out disrupting the insulative affect of walls by putting holes in them. So one for every room, price being the driving issue.

Of course when it comes to content distributor, (buying the same content again and again under new marketing) and manufacturer (you must upgrade) PR=B$ and the latest double vision, the actors with botox and plastic surgery look terrible and their facial expressions are farcical (another new secret, exactly how much does Hollywood spend on animation to cover up bad acting and trying to keep up with photoshop levels of attractiveness) and every scenery defect shows up on 3D High Definition content, that content fails on better displays. The cinema warmly fuzzy look was not without reason.

Well it's been many, many years since I've used it, which was back in the late 80s and early 90s. My impression from this time is that C++ is unquestionably a work of genius, but that I didn't particularly like it. Part of that is that we didn't really know how to use it effectively. In that era most object oriented programmers used concrete inheritance way too much. Part of that is due to aspects of what we thought an OO language should have that turned out to add complexity while being only marginally useful in practice (e.g. multiple concrete inheritance and operator overloading).

But in terms of meeting its design goals C++ is a tour de force of ingenuity -- even if some of those goals are questionable by today's standards. The very fact that we know some of those features aren't necessarily ideal is because they were taken out of the realm of academic noodling and put into a practical and highly successful language that could tackle the problems of the day on the hardware of the day. It's hard to overstate the practical impact of C++ on the advancement of both theory and practice of software development.

Any prize for contributions to OO programming pretty that didn't include Stroustrup in its first recipients would be dubious.

I have an even better idea: let's find a way to fix human beings so that they're perfectly consistent in their behavior.

While certainly taking demonstrably bad drivers off the road is a no-brainer, even good drivers have lapses. My teenaged son is learning to drive, and whenever someone does something like cut us off I make a point of saying we can't assume the driver did it on purpose, or did it because he was an inconsiderate or bad person. Even conscientious and courteous drivers make mistakes or have lapses of attention.

It's the law of large numbers. If you spend a few hours on the road, you'll encounter thousands of drivers. A few of them will be really horrible drivers who shouldn't be on the road. But a few will be conscientious drivers having a bad day, or even a bad 1500 milliseconds.

Thanks, I just may. I wonder who the other person was?

B&N has one too, I may just go for both and look for more.